5.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Košice.
6.  In 2000 a cooperative sued the applicant’s mother for termination of a tenancy agreement in respect of a flat in which she lived with the applicant and the latter’s daughter. It was argued that the tenant had failed to pay the rent and service charges. In her reply the defendant explained that she was an immobile invalid, and that her daughter had taken care of her for twenty years and was unemployed. They were in financial need and unable to pay the rent.
7.  The defendant authorised the applicant to represent her at hearings before the Košice I District Court on 15 January 2002 and 17 May 2002. Subsequently, the District Court examined the case in the presence of the applicant who attended hearings but had no authority to represent her mother.
8.  On 9 September 2004 the District Court allowed the action with reference to Article 711 § 1 (d) of the Civil Code. It ordered the applicant’s mother and the other persons living with her to move out of the flat within fifteen days after they have been provided with substitute accommodation. The court held it established that the tenant had failed to pay the rent for a period exceeding three months.
9.  The applicant’s mother appealed on 8 November 2004. She described her and her daughter’s difficult situation. At the hearing the applicant submitted that a substantial part of the debt had been paid in the meantime.
10.  On 26 April 2005 the Košice Regional Court upheld the first‑instance judgment. With reference to the reasons for that judgment the Regional Court held that the District Court had established the relevant facts and had applied the relevant law correctly.
11.  On 24 June 2005 the applicant’s mother filed an appeal on points of law. She subsequently appointed a lawyer to represent her in the proceedings.
12.  In the appeal on points of law it was argued that the applicant’s mother had been prevented from protecting her rights at first-instance as the court had proceeded with the case at several hearings without having duly summoned her. The Regional Court had not redressed the shortcomings in the first-instance proceedings. The applicant’s mother relied on Article 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure and maintained that the District Court had not complied with its obligation to inform her of the possibility of having a lawyer appointed to represent her in the proceedings. She also argued that the courts had made their decision in disregard of Article 712b of the Civil Code.
13.  On 24 February 2006 the applicant’s mother died. The applicant joined the proceedings as a defendant on 13 August 2007.
14.  On 25 October 2007 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on points of law. It noted that the applicant had been authorised to represent her mother at two hearings, that she had attended further hearings and could have thus informed her mother, who had been the defendant, of the date when they took place. Furthermore, the first-instance court had sent summonses to the applicant’s mother, for example, for the hearing scheduled for 9 March 2004. Similarly, she had been summoned to a hearing before the court of appeal held on 26 April 2005 but had neither appeared nor excused her absence. The Supreme Court concluded that the lower courts had not prevented the applicant’s mother from exercising her rights.
15.  On 19 February 2008 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint in which she alleged a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in the above-mentioned proceedings leading to the Supreme Court’s decision of 25 October 2007. She argued, among other things, that her mother had not been duly summoned to hearings before the District Court and that both that court and the court of appeal had decided arbitrarily in that they had failed to examine the facts of the case in the light of Article 712b in conjunction with Article 879c of the Civil Code.
16.  On 6 May 2008 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint manifestly ill-founded. It found that the Supreme Court’s decision was neither arbitrary nor otherwise contrary to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
17.  In February 2009 the cooperative which owns the flat initiated proceedings before the Košice I District Court with a view to having the applicant removed from the flat. The proceedings are pending.